Effects of contextual cues in recall and recognition memory: The misinformation effect reconsidered

British Journal of Psychology

Volumn 98, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 485-498

  Campbell, Justine M ^a   Edwards, Mark S ^a,b   Horswill, Mark S ^a   Helman, Shaun ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c QINETIQ   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEMORY; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECALL; RECOGNITION; STUDENT; SUGGESTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; VIDEORECORDING;

ADULT; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; NARRATION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); STUDENTS; SUGGESTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 34548597006     PISSN: 20448295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000712606X160768     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abeles, P., & Morton, J. (1999). Avoiding misinformation: Reinstating target modality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 581-592.
2. Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 1-21.
3. Bekerian, D. A., & Bowers, J. M. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: Were we misled? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 139-145.
4. Belli, R. F., Lindsay, D. S., Gales, M. S., & McCarthy, T. T. (1994). Memory impairment and source misattribution in post-event misinformation experiments with short retention intervals. Memory and Cognition, 1, 40-54.
5. Bowers, J. M., & Bekerian, D. A. (1984). When will post-event information distort eyewitness testimony? Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 466-472.
6. Bowman, L. L., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1989). Similarity of encoding context does not influence resistance to memory impairment following misinformation. American Journal of Psychology, 102, 249-264.
7. Brown, J. (1976). An analysis of recognition and recall and of problems in their comparison. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 1-35). London: Wiley.
8. Chandler, C. C. (1989). Specific retroactive interference in modified recognition tests: Evidence for unknown cause of interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 256-265.
9. Chandler, C. C. (1991). How memory for an event is influenced by related event: Interference in modified recognition tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 115-125.
10. Cleary, A. M., & Greene, R. L. (2002). Paradoxical effects of presentation modality on false memory. Memory, 10, 55-61.
11. Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 813-825.
12. Gallo, D. A., McDermott, K. B., Percer, J. M., & Roediger, H. L., III (2001). Modality effects in false recall and false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 339-353.
13. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Presentation modality and mode of recall in verbal false memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 913-919.
14. Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitness' ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 1077-1083.
15. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989a). The reversed eyewitness suggestibility effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 11-113.
16. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989b). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17, 349-358.
17. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
18. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19-31.
20. Loftus, E. F., Schooler, J. W., & Wagenaar, W. (1985). The fate of memory: Comment on McCloskey and Zaragoza. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 375-380.
21. Masson, M. E. J., & MacLeod, C. M. (2002). Covert operations: Orthographic recoding as a basis for repetition priming in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 858-871.
22. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading post-event information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1-16.
23. Pezdek, K., & Greene J. (1993). Testing eyewitness testimony: Developing a measure that is more resistant to suggestibility. Law and Human Behaviour, 17, 361-369.
24. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803-814.
25. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 710-715.
26. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic-memory. Psychological Review, 80, 353-373.
27. Wright, D. B. (1993). Misinformation and warnings in eyewitness testimony: A new testing procedure to differentiate explanations. Memory, 1, 153-166.
28. Yamashita, M. (1996). A re-examination of the misinformation effect by means of visual and verbal recognition tests. Japanese Psychological Research, 38, 47-52.
29. Zaragoza, M. S., McCloskey, M., &Jamis, M. (1987). Misleading post-event information and recall of the original event: Further evidence against the memory impairment hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 36-44.